Emergency department patient experience: Same location, same provider, different scores by different survey methods

doi:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2019.03.002

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of an ED patient experience survey report and identified the effects of patient demographics on ED patient experiences.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study at a university-based ED from July to December 2017. We obtained ED patient experience scores from an institutional version (IS) survey and the Press Ganey Associates-distributed survey (PGA). We compared top box scores from the two reports using frequency analysis and performed multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations between IS patient demographics and scores.
RESULTS: We obtained 289 PGA and 234 IS responses. The IS reported significant, higher top box scores in doctor-specific patient questions compared to PGA (all four P-values < 0.01). Female, Christian and White patients were more likely to give top box scores (OR 3.07, OR 2.22 and OR 2.41, P-value < 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in ED patient experience scores between the IS and PGA surveys. We recommend that healthcare providers consider patient demographic variables when interpreting ED experience score reports. Multiple survey techniques and distribution methods may be adopted to best capture ED patient experiences.

Key words: Patient experience, Emergency department, Patient satisfaction, Press Ganey, Survey methodology

Wirachin Hoonpongsimanont, Preet Kaur Sahota, Yanjun Chen, Maria Nguyen, Christine Louis, Jonathan Pena, Andrew Wong, Maxwell Jen. Emergency department patient experience: Same location, same provider, different scores by different survey methods[J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2019, 10(3): 138-144.

Figures/Tables 4

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Associations between institutional survey demographic variables and the probability of satisfaction top box scores

Survey variables	Patient variables	Comparison	OR	95% CI		P-value
Courtesy of the doctor	Age		1.01	0.98	1.03	0.63
	Gender	Female vs. male	3.07	1.03	9.13	0.04
	Race	White vs. others	1.33	0.43	4.06	0.62
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	1.38	0.49	3.90	0.55
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/unknown	0.63	0.21	1.92	0.42
Degree to which the doctor took the time to listen to you	Age		0.98	0.96	1.00	0.10
	Gender	Female vs. male	1.33	0.54	3.27	0.53
	Race	White vs. others	1.47	0.55	3.90	0.44
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	1.01	0.39	2.61	0.99
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/unknown	0.77	0.29	2.03	0.60
Doctors concern to keep you informed about your treatment	Age		1.01	0.99	1.03	0.48
	Gender	Female vs. male	1.08	0.52	2.22	0.84
	Race	White vs. others	1.23	0.54	2.79	0.62
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	1.69	0.79	3.60	0.18
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/unknown	1.21	0.58	2.55	0.61
Doctors concern for your comfort while treating you	Age		1.00	0.98	1.02	0.96
	Gender	Female vs. male	1.29	0.65	2.58	0.46
	Race	White vs. others	1.15	0.52	2.51	0.73
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	0.93	0.46	1.89	0.85
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/unknown	1.26	0.62	2.56	0.52
How well pain was controlled	Age		1.00	0.98	1.02	0.95
	Gender	Female vs. male	1.07	0.58	1.97	0.83
	Race	White vs. others	1.50	0.77	2.94	0.24
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	1.48	0.79	2.77	0.23
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/unknown	1.06	0.57	1.99	0.84
Overall rating ER care	Age		1.01	0.99	1.02	0.43
	Gender	Female vs. male	0.87	0.47	1.61	0.66
	Race	White vs. others	2.41	1.24	4.70	0.01
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	1.24	0.66	2.34	0.51
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/unknown	2.22	1.20	4.12	0.01
Likelihood of recommending	Age		1.00	0.98	1.02	0.70
	Gender	Female vs. male	0.89	0.44	1.80	0.74
	Race	White vs. others	1.74	0.81	3.73	0.15
	Employment status	Employed vs. unemployed	1.08	0.52	2.24	0.83
	Religious preference	Christian vs. others/Unknown	2.57	1.26	5.24	0.01

Table 4

References 19

1	Press Ganey Associates, Inc. About Press Ganey [Internet]. United States, Press Ganey Associates, Inc. Available from: http://www.pressganey.com/about.
2	Sayah A, Lai-Becker M, Kingsley-Rocker L, Scott-Long T, O'Connor K, Lobon LF. Emergency department expansion versus patient flow improvement: impact on patient experience of care. J Emerg Med. 2016; 50(2):339-48. pmid: 26381804
3	Hwang CE, Lipman GS, Kane M. Effect of an emergency department fast track on Press-Ganey patient satisfaction scores. West J Emerg Med.. 2015; 16(1):34-8.
4	Zgierska A, Rabago D, Miller MM. Impact of patient satisfaction ratings on physicians and clinical care. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014; 8:437-46.
5	Zusman EE. HCAHPS replaces Press Ganey survey as quality measure for patient hospital experience. Neurosurgery.. 2012; 71(2):N21-4.
6	Darnall BD, Schatman ME. Autonomy vs paternalism in the emergency department: the potential deleterious impact of patient satisfaction surveys. Pain Med. 2013; 14(7):968. pmid: 23755903
7	American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Patient Satisfaction [Internet]. United States, American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Available from: https://www.acep.org/patientsatisfaction/.
8	Tyser AR, Abtahi AM, McFadden M, Presson AP. Evidence of non-response bias in the Press-Ganey patient satisfaction survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16(a):350.
9	Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Emergency Department Patient Experience of Care (EDPEC) Survey, 2.0 Version [Internet]. United States, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Available from: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/research/cahps/edpec-survey.pdf.
10	Tekwani KL, Kerem Y, Mistry CD, Sayger BM, Kulstad EB. Emergency department crowding is associated with reduced satisfaction scores in patients discharged from the emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 2013; 14(1):11-5. pmid: 23447751
11	Bendesky BS, Hunter K, Kirchhoff MA, Jones CW. Same physician, different location, different patient satisfaction scores. Ann Emerg Med. 2016; 68(5):531-5.
12	Scantron Corporation. Improving Survey Response Rates: Four Tactics to Increase Participation [Internet]. United States, Scantron Corporation. Available from: http://scantron.com/~/media/Scantron/Files/products/surveytracker-plus/4TipsImproveResponseRate.ashx.
13	Aeimchanbanjong K, Pandee U. Validation of different pediatric triage systems in the emergency department. World J Emerg Med. 2017; 8(3):223-7.
14	McFarland DC, Ornstein KA, Holcombe RF. Demographic factors and hospital size predict patient satisfaction variance--implications for hospital value-based purchasing. J Hosp Med. 2015; 10(8):503-9. pmid: 25940305
15	Handel DA, French LK, Nichol J, Momberger J, Fu R. Associations between patient and emergency department operational characteristics and patient satisfaction scores in an adult population. Ann Emerg Med. 2014; 64(6):604-8. pmid: 25182541
16	Yasuda H, Hagiwara Y, Watase H, Hasegawa K. Nocturnal emergency department visits, duration of symptoms and risk of hospitalisation among adults with asthma exacerbations: a multicentre observational study. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(8):e010670. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010670 pmid: 27519919
17	Bassetti C, Aldrich M. Night time versus daytime transient ischaemic attack and ischaemic stroke: a prospective study of 110 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999; 67(4):463-7.
18	Drake FT, Mottey NE, Castelli AA, Florence MG, Johnson MG, Steele SR, et al. Time-of-day and appendicitis: Impact on management and outcomes. Surgery. 2017; 161(2):405-14. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.06.052 pmid: 27592212
19	Downing A, Wilson R. Temporal and demographic variations in attendance at accident and emergency departments. Emerg Med J. 2002; 19(6):531-535.

Variables	Results
Patient age (year)	46.04±19.00
Patient homelessness status
No	232 (99.15)
Yes	2 (0.85)
Patient gender
Female	125 (53.42)
Male	109 (46.58)
Patient race
White	178 (76.07)
Asian	27 (11.54)
Black	6 (2.56)
Pacific/Hawaiian	1 (0.43)
Other	22 (9.4)
Patient employment status
Employed	105 (45.06)
Unemployed	128 (54.94)
Patient religious preference
Christian	147 (62.82)
Other/unknown	87 (37.18)

Variables	IS			PG
Variables	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD
Overall average	234	94.11	8.07	279	85.0	22.3
Courtesy of the doctor	234	98.12	7.17	277	87.9	20.1
Degree to which the doctor took the time to listen to you	234	97.78	7.31	276	86.1	22.6
Doctors concern to keep you informed about your treatment	234	95.13	13.18	275	83.5	25.3
Doctors concern for your comfort while treating you	234	94.96	12.58	273	82.1	26.6
How well pain was controlled	202	86.58	21.13	262	74.0	30.5
Overall rating ER care	234	91.24	14.04	289	80.4	27.2
Likelihood of recommending	230	93.77	14.09	271	77.6	31.1

Variables	IS			PG			P-value
Variables	N total	Very good*	% very good	N total	Very good	% very good	P-value
Overall average	936	821	87.71	1,101	682	61.90	<0.01
Courtesy of the doctor	234	217	92.74	277	180	65.00	<0.01
Degree to which the doctor took the time to listen to you	234	212	90.60	276	176	63.80	<0.01
Doctors concern to keep you informed about your treatment	234	198	84.62	275	167	60.70	<0.01
Doctors concern for your comfort while treating you	234	194	82.91	273	158	57.90	<0.01
How well pain was controlled	248	139	55.94	262	116	44.30	0.075
Overall rating ER care	279	174	62.39	289	156	54.00	0.25
Likelihood of recommending	230	190	82.61	271	149	55.00	<0.01

[1]	Weiming Wu, Min Li, Huilin Jiang, Min Sun, Yongcheng Zhu, Gongxu Zhu, Yanling Li, Yunmei Li, Junrong Mo, Xiaohui Chen, Haifeng Mao. Development of an emergency department length-of-stay prediction model based on machine learning [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2025, 16(3): 220-224.
[2]	Jingyuan Xie, Jiandong Gao, Mutian Yang, Ting Zhang, Yecheng Liu, Yutong Chen, Zetong Liu, Qimin Mei, Zhimao Li, Huadong Zhu, Ji Wu. Prediction of sepsis within 24 hours at the triage stage in emergency departments using machine learning [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2024, 15(5): 379-385.
[3]	Payush Chatta, Brian Diep, Jakrin Kewcharoen, Daniel Rossie, Cory Toomasian, Purvi Parwani, Dmitry Abramov. The diagnostic yield for computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with anticoagulation [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2024, 15(4): 251-255.
[4]	Jie Er Janice Soo, Yuan Helen Zhang, Gek Hsiang Lim, Fatimah Lateef. Bicycle-related traumatic injuries: a retrospective study during COVID-19 pandemic [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2024, 15(4): 256-262.
[5]	Rex Pui Kin Lam, Zonglin Dai, Eric Ho Yin Lau, Carrie Yuen Ting Ip, Ho Ching Chan, Lingyun Zhao, Tat Chi Tsang, Matthew Sik Hon Tsui, Timothy Hudson Rainer. Comparing 11 early warning scores and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2024, 15(4): 273-282.
[6]	Jonathan Chabon, Jemer Garrido, Deanna Schreiber-Gregory, Jefferson Drapkin, Sergey Motov. Trends in oxycodone and oxycodone-containing analgesics administration for back pain in emergency departments in the USA (2007-2018) [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2024, 15(3): 169-174.
[7]	Yedalm Yoo, Shin Ahn, Bora Chae, Won Young Kim. Performance of the EDACS-ADP incorporating high-sensitivity troponin assay: Do components of major adverse cardiac events matter? [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2024, 15(3): 175-180.
[8]	Diogo de Almeida Fernandes, Guilherme de Freitas Camões, Diana Ferreira, Carolina Queijo, Carlos Fontes-Ribeiro, Lino Gonçalves, Rui Pina, Natália António. Prevalence and risk factors for acquired long QT syndrome in the emergency department: a retrospective observational study [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2023, 14(6): 454-461.
[9]	Fady Y. Hijji, Andrew D. Schneider, Matthew D. Thomas, Joseph G. Lyons, Daniel D. Bohl, Jennifer L. Jerele, Michael J. Prayson. Knowledge of radiation exposure associated with common trauma imaging modalities among orthopaedic surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and general surgeons in the United States [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2023, 14(4): 294-301.
[10]	Xinlei Wang, Yao Sun, Xiaoyu Ni, Shu Zhang. Development and validation of an emergency bloodstream infection score for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with community-acquired bloodstream infections [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2023, 14(4): 280-286.
[11]	Ahmed Faidh Ramzee, Ayman El-Menyar, Mohammad Asim, Ahad Kanbar, Khalid Ahmed, Bahaa Daoud, Saji Mathradikkal, Ahmad Kloub, Hassan Al-Thani, Sandro Rizoli. The impact of emergency department length of stay on the outcomes of trauma patients requiring hospitalization: a retrospective observational study [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2023, 14(2): 96-105.
[12]	Jee Yen Kuck, Abdul Muhaimin Noor Azhar, Neena Wee, Rishya Manikam. Diagnostic accuracy of the tongue blade test combined with clinical signs to detect maxillary and mandibular fractures in the emergency department [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2023, 14(2): 122-127.
[13]	Guang-mei Wang, Yong Li, Shuo Wu, Wen Zheng, Jing-jing Ma, Feng Xu, Jia-qi Zheng, He Zhang, Jia-li Wang, Yu-guo Chen. The combination of creatine kinase-myocardial band isoenzyme and point-of-care cardiac troponin/ contemporary cardiac troponin for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2022, 13(3): 163-168.
[14]	Ittai Shichman, Or Shaked, Shai Factor, Ahuva Weiss-Meilik, Amal Khoury. Emergency department electric scooter injuries after the introduction of shared e-scooter services: A retrospective review of 3,331 cases [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2022, 13(1): 5-10.
[15]	Ralphe Bou Chebl, Nader El Souki, Mirabelle Geha, Imad Majzoub, Rima Kaddoura, Hady Zgheib. Two-point compression ultrasonography: Enough to rule out lower extremity deep venous thrombosis? [J]. World Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2021, 12(4): 268-273.